ÿWPC …U:V %b–žn­® 04[w.—4Å 0xÙ 0DQ 0J• 0Tß 0^3 0h‘ 0rù 0|k 0†ç 0m 1uý 0dr U>Ö B)DC= AM€U*Í÷v~vÓ… D3X B‹ 0@¨ AOèÆ7 0Dý D/A Bp<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTX- ù-3|x‘«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó‚ƒ„E…†‡Ó€‘DÒ (((3Þ $¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌNovember€1,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò,,,,'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€Ö¤XXdÖdÈ7ÑÑ€ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€"Ôò ò›DAVID€F.€BUSH,à àà àà à€à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)à àWilliamson€County€CircuitÌà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à€€€)à àœCase€No.€92530›Ìà àà àà àà à€€€à àà à€€€)€ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€ÌBRENDA€L.€ALLGOOD€andà àà à€€€)à àAppeal€No.€ÌMERCANTILE€PROPERTIES,€INC.,à à€€€)à à01A01„9605„CV„00207Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à€€€)ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€%'$;+'h|çåg` ç `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÓ  ÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€ÌWILLIAMSON€COUNTY,€€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓHONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÌó óÌWilliam€B.€BradleyÌPeach€Court€Bldg.,€Suite€210Ì7105€Peach€CourtÌP.O.€Box€1223ÌBrentwood,€Tennessee€37024ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌThomas€I.€Carlton,€Jr.ÌDaniel€P.€BerexaÌCornelius€&€CollinsÌSuite€2700ÌNashville€City€CenterÌ511€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÓ  Óà àÔ€"¼Ôò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÔ€"XÔÌÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE,ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE,ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òDAVID€F.€BUSH,à àà àà à€à à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)à àWilliamson€County€CircuitÌà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà à€€€)à àœCase€No.€€92530›Ìà àà àà àà à€€€à àà à€€€)€ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)€ÌBRENDA€L.€ALLGOOD€andà àà à€€€)à àAppeal€No.€ÌMERCANTILE€PROPERTIES,€INC.,à à€€€)à à01A01„9605„CV„00207Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà àà à€€€)ó óÌÓÓÌÓ  Óò òòòÔ€"„ÔO€€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€NÔ€"XÔóóó óÌÓÓÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThe€Trial€Court€granted€summary€judgement€dismissing€one€of€the€defendants,€MercantileÏProperties,€Inc.,€and€ordered€entry€of€final€partial€judgment€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.€Rule€54.02.€ÏPlaintiff€has€appealed.€€The€remaining€defendant,€Brenda€L.€Allgood,€is€not€involved€in€thisÏappeal.ÌÌà àPlaintiff€sued€for€personal€injuries€and€property€damages€sustained€in€the€collision€of€aÏmotorcycle€operated€by€plaintiff€and€an€automobile€operated€by€Brenda€L.€Allgood.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€collision€occurred€in€œBrentwood›€œat›€the€intersection€of€Chadwick€Drive€and€CenterviewÏDrive,€where€a€stop€sign€requires€vehicles€approaching€the€intersection€on€Chadwick€Drive€to€stopÍand€yield€the€right€of€way€to€traffic€on€Centerview€Drive.€€Traveling€€eastward€on€Chadwick€Drive,Ïplaintiff€entered€the€intersection€and€was€struck€by€the€Allgood€vehicle€traveling€in€a€southwardÏdirection€on€Centerview€Drive.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€appellee,€Mercantile€Properties,€Inc.,€was€the€owner€of€property€at€theÏnorthwest€corner€of€the€intersection.ÌÌà àThe€complaint€alleges€œthat€before›€entering€the€intersection,€plaintiff€stopped,€looked€forÏtraffic€on€Centerview,€and€saw€none€because€his€vision€was€obstructed€by€vegetation€on€theÏproperty€of€Mercantile;€and€that€he€œproceeded›€into€Centerview€where€he€was€struck€by€the€vehicleÏoperated€by€Ms.€Allgood.€€The€complaint€also€alleges€that€appellee€negligently€maintained€itsÏproperty€adjoining€the€intersection€in€violation€œof€T.C.A.›€ðð€39„17„307€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà àò ò€€€€Obstructing€€highway€or€€other€€passagewayó ó.€€(a)€€A€Ìà àà àperson€€commits€an€offense€€who,€€without€legal€privilege,€Ìà àà àintentionally,€knowingly€or€recklessly:ÌÌà àà à€€€€(1)€€€Obstructs€€a€€€highway,€€street,€€sidewalk,€€railway,€Ìà àà àwaterway,€elevator,€€aisle,€or€hallway€to€which€the€public,€Ìà àà àor€€a€substantial€portion€of€the€public,€€has€access;€or€€any€Ìà àà àother€place€used€for€the€€passage€of€€persons,€€vehicles€or€Ìà àà àconveyances,€€whether€€the€€obstruction€€arises€€from€€the€€Ìà àà àpersonððs€acts€alone€or€from€the€personððs€acts€and€the€acts€Ìà àà àof€œothers;€or€.€.€.›ÌÓ  ÓÌà àà à(b)€€For€€purposes€€of€€this€€section,€€ð ðobstructðð€€means€€to€Ìà àà àrender€€€impassable€€or€€to€€render€€passage€€€unreasonablyÌà àà àinconvenient€€€or€€€òòpotentially€€€injurious€€€to€€€persons€€€orÌÓÓà àà àœpropertyóó.€€(Emphasis€added.)›€ÌÌà àOn€September€14,€1995,€appellee€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€On€November€3,Í1995,€plaintiff€filed€a€response€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment€in€which,€for€the€first€time,€heÏrelied€upon€Ordinances€12„103€and€11„210€of€the€City€of€Brentwood.ÌÌà àThe€record€does€not€disclose€the€date€of€the€hearing,€but€the€order€granting€summaryÏjudgment,€entered€on€November€14,€1995,€contains€a€reference€to€the€two€city€ordinancesÏmentioned€in€plaintiffððs€response€to€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€evidence€includes€the€œfollowing:ÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓ›à àThe€affidavit€of€the€vice€mayor€of€Brentwood€asserts€that€the€paved€surfaces€of€CenterviewÏand€Chadwick€Drives€are€each€in€the€center€of€a€60€foot€wide€dedicated€right€of€way€forÏmaintenance€of€which€the€city€has€accepted€and€exercises€responsibility€and€that€at€least€10€feet€ofÏunpaved€right€of€way€exists€on€each€side€of€both€pavements.ÌÌà àThe€affidavit€of€Robert€P.€Murphy,€a€œregistered›€land€surveyor€and€transportation€engineerÏstates€that€he€surveyed€the€scene€of€the€collision,€located€the€edges€of€the€pavement€and€€the€edgesÏof€the€rights€of€way€adjoining€appelleeððsððs€property€and€expressed€his€opinion€that€any€obstructionÏto€plaintiffððs€vision€while€he€was€stopped€at€the€stop€sign€was€located€on€the€public€right€of€wayÏand€not€the€property€of€appellee.ÌÌà àThe€affidavit€of€Doug€Jones,€landscaper€for€the€defendant„appellee,€stated€he€mowed€theÏproperty€of€defendant€appellee€out€to€the€pavement,€but€he€frequently€found€it€unnecessary€to€mowÏa€25€or€30€foot€wide€strip€adjacent€to€the€pavement€of€Chadwick€and€Centerview€Drive€because€itÍhad€been€previously€mowed.Ì€€Ìà àThe€testimony€of€€the€defendant,€Allgood,€was€that,€as€she€approached€the€intersection€sheÏwas€able€to€see€plaintiff€ð ðsitting€at€the€white€line,ðð€that€nothing€obscured€her€vision€of€plaintiff€andÏthat€she€saw€him€move€forward€into€the€intersection,€but€was€unable€to€avoid€the€collision,€and€thatÏthere€was€no€obstruction€of€her€vision.ÌÌà àThe€plaintiff€testified€that€he€stopped€ð ðbehind€the€stop€lineðð€and€then€moved€forward€someÏdistance€for€a€better€view€without€entering€the€pavement€of€Centerview€Drive.€€He€further€testified;ÌÓÓà àà àQ.à àWhat€€did€€you€€do€€once€you€stopped€€that€second€Ìà àà àà àtime€where€youððve€marked€on€Exhibit€17?ÌÌà àà àA.à àI€€looked€€to€€the€€left,€looked€to€the€right,€back€to€Ìà àà àà àthe€left.ÌÌà àà àQ.à àAnd€to€the€left€would€be€North.€€€ÌÌà àà àA.à à(Witness€nods€head€in€the€affirmative.)€€ÌÌà àà àQ.à àWhen€you€€looked€€to€€the€€left€€the€first€time,€did€Ìà àà àà àyou€see€any€vehicles?ÌÌà àà àA.à àNo.ÌÌà àà àQ.à àThen€€you€€looked€to€€the€€right,€did€you€see€any€Ìà àà àà àvehicles€at€that€time?à àÌÌà àà àA.à àHow€about€when€you€looked€to€the€€left€€again?ÌÌà àà àQ.à àNo.ÌÌà àà àA.à àThen€you€began€to€proceed€out€into€the€intersection.ÌÌà àà àQ.à àCorrect.ÌÌà àà àA.à àDid€€you€€ever€see€the€vehicle€that€Ms.€Allgood€was€Ìà àà àà àdriving€prior€to€the€accident?ÌÌà àà àQ.à àNo.€€The€€grass€€was€so€high€I€couldnððt€see€anything€Ìà àà àà àcoming€up€that€way.ÌÌà àà àA.à àSo€you€never€saw€it€before€the€impact.ÌÌà àà àQ.à àI€saw€it€when€I€was€out€in€the€middle,€you€know,€my€Ìà àà àà àbike€was€halfway€across€the€lane.ÌÓÓÌà àOn€November€14,€1995,€the€Trial€Court€entered€summary€judgment€dismissing€Mercantile.ÌÌà àOn€January€5,€1996,€plaintiff€moved€the€Trial€Court€for€leave€to€amend€the€complaint€toÏallege€violations€of€Ordinances€12„103€and€11„210€of€the€City€of€Brentwood.€€€On€January€8,Ï1996,€plaintiff€filed€the€following€motion:ÌÓÓòòà àà àò òMOTION€TO€AMEND€ORDER€OF€FINAL€JUDGMENTÌà àà àà àœAS›€TO€MERCANTILE€PROPERTIES,€INC.ó óóóÌÌà àà à€€€€Plaintiff€€moves€€the€€Court€€to€€amend€the€Order€of€Final€Ìà àà àJudgement€€as€€to€€Mercantile€€Properties,€Inc.€To€allow€forÌà àà àan€€interlocutory€€appeal€€by€€Plaintiff€€or,€€in€the€alternative,Ìà àà àto€€order€€that€the€trial€in€this€case€be€set€following€the€finalÌà àà àdisposition€of€the€appeal€on€the€ground€that€it€€is€in€the€bestÌà àà àinterests€€of€€all€€the€€parties€€and€€the€Court€that€all€mattersÌà àà àbe€resolved€in€one€trial€rather€than€possibly€two€trials.ÌÓÓÌà àOn€February€9,€1996,€the€Trial€Court€entered€the€following€order:Ìòòà àà àà àà àà àò òORDERóóó óÌÓÓà àà à€€€€Plaintiffððs€Motion€to€Amend€the€Complaint€€and€€MotionÌà àà àto€€Amend€€the€Courtððs€Order€Granting€Summary€JudgmentÌà àà àto€Defendant€Mercantile€having€come€on€to€be€heard€beforeÌà àà àthe€Honorable€Henry€Denmark€Bell,€Judge,€on€the€29th€dayÌà àà àof€€January,€1996,€and€it€€appearing€€to€€the€€Court€from€the€Ìà àà àrecord€and€from€arguments€of€counsel€that€€Plaintiff€€should€Ìà àà àbe€€allowed€€to€€amend€€the€€Complaint€€to€€conform€€to€€the€Ìà àà àrecord,€€that€€the€€Order€€of€€the€€Court€€granting€€SummaryÌà àà àJudgment€to€Defendant€Mercantile€should€not€be€amended.Ì€Ìà àà à€€€€It€is,€therefore,€ò òORDEREDó ó€that:ÌÌà àà à€€€€1.€€Plaintiffððs€€Motion€€to€€Amend€the€Complaint€isÌà àà àgranted;ÌÌà àà à€€€€2.€€Plaintiffððs€€€Motion€€to€€Amend€€the€€€SummaryÌà àà àJudgment€granted€to€Defendant€Mercantile€is€denied.ÌÓÓÌà àOn€appeal,€plaintiff€presents€a€single€issue€as€follows:òòÌÓÓóóà àà à€€€€Do€the€ordinances€of€the€City€of€Brentwood,€whichÌà àà àimpose€a€duty€on€defendant€Mercantile€to€not€obstructÌà àà àvision€€or€€view€for€the€safety€of€vehicles,€apply€to€thatÌà àà àportion€€of€€€landownerððs€€property€€subservient€€€to€€anÌà àà àeasement?€ÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellee€presents€an€additional€issue€in€the€following€form:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€The€Trial€Court€erred€in€allowing€the€post„judgmentÌà àà àamendment€€to€€the€€complaint€adding€€allegations€€thatÌà àà àMercantile€had€violated€City€of€Brentwood€ordinances.ÌÓÓÌà àSurprisingly,€appellant€has€not€seen€fit€to€reply€to€the€issue€stated€and€argued€by€appellee.ÌÌà àT.R.C.P.€Rule€15.02€provides€in€pertinent€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€ò òòòAmendments€€to€€Conform€to€the€Evidenceóóó ó.€When€Ìà àà àissues€not€raised€by€€the€€pleadings€are€€tried€by€expressÌà àà àor€implied€consent€of€€the€parties,€they€€shall€be€€treated€Ìà àà àin€all€respects€as€if€they€had€been€raised€in€the€pleadings.Ìà àà àSuch€€amendment€of€€the€pleadings€as€may€be€necessaryÌà àà àto€cause€€them€to€conform€to€the€evidence€€and€€to€raise€€Ìà àà àthese€€issues€€may€€be€made€upon€motion€of€any€party€at€Ìà àà àany€time,€even€after€judgment.ÌÓÓÌà àAppellee€does€not€argue€that€it€was€denied€a€fair€opportunity€to€litigate€the€effect€of€theÍordinance€upon€the€rights€of€the€parties.€€It€appears€that€the€issue€of€the€effects€of€these€ordinancesÏwas€discussed€and€decided€by€the€Trial€Court,€and€that€appellee€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€belatedÏallowance€of€the€amendment.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€insists€that€the€Trial€Court€was€in€error€in€holding€appellee€had€no€duty€toÏprevent€obstruction€on€the€dedicated€right€way€easement.Ìà àÌà àThe€summary€judgment€states:ÌÓÓà àà à€€€€Mercantile€€contends€€that€the€right€of€way€for€the€twoÌà àà àroadways€€was€owned€by€the€City€of€Brentwood€and€thatÌà àà àthe€right€of€way€for€each€road€is€sixty€feet€wide,€that€is€toÌà àà àsay,€€thirty€€feet€€from€€the€€center€€line€of€each€road.€€TheÌà àà àright€of€way€dedicated€to€the€City€of€Brentwood€includesÌà àà àa€€portion€€of€€the€€field€€which€is€located€at€the€northwest€Ìà àà àcorner€€of€€€the€€€intersection€€of€€€Centerview€€Drive€€€andÌà àà àChadwick€€Drive€and€€exceeds€the€right€of€way€a€distanceÌà àà àin€excess€of€ten€feet.€The€City€of€Brentwood€is€responsibleÌà àà àfor€and€does€maintain€and€cut€the€vegetation€in€these€right„€Ìà àà àof„ways€€including€€the€€portion€€of€the€field€on€the€subjectÌà àà ànorthwest€corner.€(Affidavit€of€Louis€J.€Baltz).€The€weedsÌà àà àblocking€€the€view€of€€the€plaintiff€were€within€the€right€of€Ìà àà àway€€dedicated€€to€Brentwood€and€€plaintiff€€cannot€€show€Ìà àà àthat€€weeds€€beyond€€the€right€of€way€made€any€difference.Ìà àà àAll€€evidence€€concerns€€weeds€€which€were€in€the€right€of€Ìà àà àway.€ÌÌà àà à€€€€Defendant€Mercantile€contends€that€€the€evidence€doesÌà àà ànot€show€a€duty€owned€by€Mercantile€€in€connection€withÌà àà àthe€€obstructing€€weeds€€and€€also€that€the€presence€of€the€Ìà àà àweeds€was€not€a€proximate€cause€of€the€collision.ÌÌà àà àAs€€€a€€€answer€€to€€€this€€€€contention,€€€plaintiff€€€exhibits€Ìà àà àordinances€of€the€City€of€Brentwood€as€follows:ÌÌà àà à€€€€11„210.€òòò òObstruction€to€vision€at€street€€intersectionÌà àà àprohibitedó óóó.€€On€€a€€corner€€lot€within€the€area€€formed€by€Ìà àà àthe€center€lines€joining€€points€€on€€such€€center€lines€at€€a€Ìà àà àdistance€of€ninety€€(90)€feet€from€€their€intersection,€there€Ìà àà àshall€be€no€obstruction€to€vision€òòbetween€a€height€of€three€Ìà àà àand€€one„half€(3„1/2)€feet€€and€€a€€height€of€€ten€(10)€feet€Ìà àà àabove€the€average€grade€of€each€streetóó€€at€the€center€line€Ìà àà àthereof.€€The€€requirements€€of€€this€€section€€shall€€not€be€Ìà àà àconstrued€to€prohibit€any€necessary€retaining€wall.ÌÌà àà à€€€12„103.ò ò€òòTrees,€€etc.,€obstructing€view€at€€intersectionÌà àà àprohibitedó óóó.€€It€shall€be€unlawful€for€any€property€owner€to€Ìà àà àhave€€or€€maintain€€òòon€€his€property€any€tree,€shrub,€sign€or€Ìà àà àother€€obstruction€óówhich€prevents€persons€driving€vehicles€Ìà àà àon€€public€streets€of€€alleys€€from€obtaining€a€clear€view€of€Ìà àà àtraffic€when€approaching€an€intersection.€(Emphasis€added)ÌÌà àà à€€€€It€is€€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€construe€these€ordinances,Ìà àà àif€€possible,€in€such€a€way€as€to€not€put€them€in€violation€of€Ìà àà àState€law.€€We€have€seen€above€that€the€City€of€BrentwoodÌà àà àhas€€the€€duty€€under€€State€€law€€to€manage€its€right€of€way€Ìà àà àproperty€in€such€a€manner€as€to€not€€permit€€obstructions€toÌà àà àvisibility€€of€€drivers€€of€motor€vehicles.€€The€City€cannot€byÌà àà àordinance€€avoid€€this€€duty€€by€€shifting€€it€€to€someone€else.Ìà àà àTherefore€€the€ordinances€apply€to€owners€of€land€adjoiningÌà àà àthe€cityððs€right€of€way€but€not€to€the€right€of€way€itself.€òòTheÌà àà àCourt€concludes€that€the€defendant€Mercantile€did€not€haveÌà àà àa€duty€to€plaintiff€the€cut€the€vegetation€growing€upon€theÌà àà àright€of€way€which€blocked€the€vision€of€operators€of€motorÌà àà àvehicles€on€the€streets€of€Brentwoodóó.€€(Emphasis€supplied.)ÌÌÓÓà àThis€Court€respectfully€disagrees€with€the€holding€of€the€Trial€Judge€that,€because€the€CityÏhas€a€duty€to€keep€its€rights€of€way€clear€of€obstructions,€it€may€not€impose€the€same€duty€uponÏabutting€property€owners€within€its€jurisdiction.€€œThe›€delegation€of€this€duty€does€not€relieve€theÏCity€of€its€duty,€but€it€does€impose€a€duty€upon€the€abutting€property€owner€in€addition€to€that€ofÏthe€City,€so€that€a€person€injured€by€violation€of€the€duty€of€this€City€and€that€of€a€property€ownerÏmay€have€a€right€of€action€against€either€or€both.ÌÌà àThe€City€is€not€named€as€a€defendant€in€this€case,€nor€does€the€appellee€seek€apportionmentÏof€part€of€the€damages€against€the€City.ÌÌà àAppellee€cites€numerous€Tennessee€authorities€holding€that€a€municipality€has€aÏnondelegable€duty€to€maintain€its€rights€of€way.€€Each€of€said€authorities€relates€to€a€duty€toÏconstruct€or€maintain€a€sidewalk.€€The€duty€to€mow€vegetation€between€the€pavement€and€the€edgeÏof€the€right€of€way€is€a€distinguishable€situation.€€None€of€such€authorities€holds€that€a€city€may€notÏimpose€a€corresponding€duty€upon€an€abutting€land€owner,€as€to€that€part€of€the€right€of€way€whichÏis€not€improved€and€is€open€for€use€of€the€owner.€ÌÌà àœAppellee€cites€òò€Mispagel›€v.€Highway€&€Transportation€Commissionóó,€Mo.€1990,€785ÏS.W.2d€œ279,€wherein€the€Court€held›€that€an€abutting€property€owner€could€not€be€held€liable€forÏdamages€resulting€from€uncut€weeds€absent€evidence€that€the€weeds€were€œon€that€part€of€theÏproperty€of€the€owner€outside€of€the€public€right€of€way.€€In€the€present€case,€the€city€ordinanceÏplaced€a€duty€upon€the€property€owner€to€keep€the€right€of€way€clear€of€obstruction.›ÌÌà àœAppellee€also€cites›€òòStevens€v.€œDrekichóó,›€Mich.€App.€1989,€443€N.W.2d€401,€œwherein€the›Ïowners€of€abutting€property€were€held€not€liable€for€the€presence€of€a€tree€within€the€right€of€wayÏon€the€theory€of€nuisance€where€the€owners€ð ðhad€no€right€of€possession€to€the€area€within€the€rightÏof€œway.ðð€€In›€the€present€case,€there€is€no€evidence€that€the€appellee€was€in€any€way€excluded€fromÏthe€area€between€the€pavement€and€the€edge€of€the€right€of€way.€€On€the€contrary,€there€is€evidenceÏthat€appelleeððs€landscaper€was€free€to,€and€did€on€occasion,€mow€the€area€in€question.ÌÌà àUnder€these€circumstances€the€issue€of€liability€of€appellee€was€not€a€suitable€subject€of€aÏsummary€judgment.ÌÌà àThe€judgement€of€the€Trial€Court€is€œreversed€and€vacated,›€and€the€cause€is€remanded€forÏfurther€proceedings.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€against€the€appellee.à àÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDà àÌà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌœÌÌCONCUR:›ÌœÌÌ_____________________________________›ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÓÓÌÔ€Ô